The Jesus Mystery!

Find below some comments of mine after I had the joy and er privilage of looking at some of the nonsense broadcast recently about Jesus. The budget and the volume of material increases every year, it is truly appalling.

I might just sqweem and sqweem and sqweem until I'm sick. I have been looking at some programmes  about Jesus that air at this time of year. The latest was Jesus -The man behind the myths.

Many of these programmes wheel out John Dominic Crossan ( a truly unbelieving academic ) as if he is the only authoritative advice to be had. If the viewer is lucky they may get Bart Ehrman , without a doubt the greatest academic opponent of Christianity alive today. Oh joy of joys   we had both in this programme.

The scene was set a young eager explorer type was to find out for himself who Jesus really was. The journey would take him to Bethlehem (the stories aren't true Mr Crossan says) The Church of the Holy Sepulchre , Qumran, Nag Hammadi  (once Nag Hammadi was mentioned I knew where this was going!) and finally St Antony's monastery.

Are Marian Apparitions Comparable to the Resurrection of Jesus?: A Response to Hector Avalos

Dr. Hector Avalos recently left a comment on a previous blog post of mine, informing me that he has responded to critiques of an argument of his, namely his argument that arguments for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus can be used to justify the appearances of Mary at Medjugorje. The blog post in question was a draft of my dissertation on the resurrection of Jesus, where I used some of the main arguments, and also included a critique of Avalos' argument. Dr. Avalos' blog post was actually written in response to somebody else, but it nonetheless did address some of the points raised in my blog post, which is why I assume he let me know of such a response. Let's start with a brief summary of the arguments for the historicity of Jesus, followed by a brief summary of Avalos' original argument, followed by a summary of the critique of Avalos' argument. The argument for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection is fairly simple: a) there are a set of generally agreed upon facts regarding the life and death of Jesus b) the best explanation of these facts is the hypothesis that the God of Israel resurrected Jesus. These facts are: a) Jesus was crucified b) Jesus was buried in a tomb c) the tomb was later found empty d) people later saw visions of the risen Jesus. It is argued that the resurrection hypothesis satisfies the criteria for the best explanation. Those criteria being: a) explanatory scope b) explanatory power c) plausibility d) less ad-hoc e) disconfirmed by fewer existing beliefs. A second argument is that: a) Christianity was massively offensive to 1st century socio-cultural values, and got its followers persecuted b) despite this massive obstacle, Christianity nonetheless spread and thrived c) there therefore had to have been some kind of convincing evidence that Christianity was true to persuade so many people.

The Socio-Cultural Background of the New Testament Period: Understanding Christianity in its 1st Century Context

Introduction
The origins of Christianity are a subject that has attracted a considerable amount of ink over the past few centuries. For believers and non-believers alike it is a subject of great interest, but also controversy. Frequently, we hear of sensationalist books declaring some new theory about Jesus and the origins of Christianity, some fringe authors even declaring that Jesus was a mythological figure based on pagan deities. Whilst any full study would take multiple books, my focus in writing this dissertation will be on the socio-cultural background of the 1st century. This is a subject that has been oft neglected, and few scholars in recent years have attempted to tackle with these issues. One of the biggest problems of studying early Christianity is that many scholars have approached it from a 21st century Western perspective. It might seem obvious to the point of being trivial, but 1st century Greco-Roman social and cultural values were different.

Some scholars, however, have attempted to get closer to the 1st century mindset. It might seem initially surprising, but a number of American evangelical scholars have stressed various differences between 1st century culture and our own, such as a low view on women.[1] British scholar and former Bishop, N. T. Wright, in his work The Resurrection of the Son of God, has offered a comprehensive survey of Jewish and non-Jewish beliefs from the Old Testament period, up until the New Testament period.[2] A number of scholars, including but not limited to Richard Bauckham and Michael Licona, have compared the Gospels to other written works from the same time period.[3] The problem with these writers is that these elements are only bought up in isolation, or are not the main focus. One group of scholars, however, known as the ‘Context Group’ have published a series of commentaries and volumes exploring 1st century culture.[4]

Chronological Snobbery and the Resurrection of Jesus

When discussing the historical basis for the resurrection, one often encounters a popular misconception that the ancient world was far more gullible about claims of resurrection than people are today. This common presumption amounts to what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery.” People imagine that, while our post-enlightenment modern world treats claims of resurrection with doubt and skepticism, the ancient world — being full of superstition and credulity abut the supernatural — would have been poised to accept such a claim.

This discredited notion is addressed by N.T. Wright in his book The Resurrection of the Son of God, in which he surveys the (Jewish and non-Jewish) ideas concerning resurrection and the afterlife in the first-century Mediterranean world. He shows that the unanimous view in both the Jewish and non-Jewish cultures was that bodily resurrection wasn’t possible. From the point of view of Greco-Roman ideas, the physical world is seen as being defiling and corrupt, while the spirit or soul was considered good. Within Judaism, there were two major sects — the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The former rejected all notions of an afterlife and resurrection, while the latter believed that there would one day come a general resurrection at the end of the world — but this precluded the possibility of someone rising bodily from the dead to glory and immortality in the middle of history, before this general resurrection at the end of time. As Timothy Keller explains in his book The Reason for God (p. 205),

 “The idea of an individual being resurrected, in the middle of history, while the rest of the world continued on burdened by sickness, decay and death, was inconceivable. If someone had said to any first-century Jew, ‘So-and-so has been resurrected from the dead!’ the response would be, ‘Are you crazy? How could that be? Has disease and death ended? Is true justice established in the world? Has the wolf lain down with the lamb? Ridiculous!’ The very idea of an individual resurrection would have been as impossible to imagine to a Jew as to a Greek.”

We can also show historically from a number of sources that people in the ancient world had a hard time buying the resurrection story. Consider the late second century Christian writer Theophilus of Antioch. In book 1 (chapter 13) of his apology to Autolycus, he addresses this skepticism:

“Then, as to your denying that the dead are raised — for you say, “Show me even one who has been raised from the dead, that seeing I may believe,” […] But, suppose I should show you a dead man raised and alive, even this you would disbelieve. God indeed exhibits to you many proofs that you may believe Him. For consider, if you please, the dying of seasons and days and nights, how these also die and rise again. And what? Is there not a resurrection going on of seeds and fruits, and this, too, for the use of men? A seed of wheat, for example, or of the other grains, when it is cast into the earth, first dies and rots away, then is raised and becomes a stalk of corn. And the nature of trees and fruit-trees, — is it not that according to the appointment of God they produce their fruits in their seasons out of what has been unseen and invisible?”

There is a similar passage in Clement of Rome’s epistle to the church of Corinth (1st Clement 24), written most likely in the mid-90’s A.D.:

“Think, my dear friends, how the Lord offers us proof after proof that there is going to be a resurrection, of which He has made Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead. My friends, look how regularly there are processes of resurrection going on at this very moment. The days and the night show us an example of it; for night sinks to rest, and day arises; day passes away, and night comes again. Or take the fruits of the earth; how, and in what way, does a crop come into being? When the sower goes out and drops each seed into the ground, it falls to the earth shriveled and bare, and decays; but presently the power of the Lord’s providence raises it from decay, and from that single grain a host of others spring up and yield their fruit.”

Finally, the second century apologist Justin Martyr, in his first apology (chapter 19), also addresses the believability of the resurrection. He writes thus:

“And to any thoughtful person would anything appear more incredible, than, if we were not in the body, and some one were to say that it was possible that from a small drop of human seed bones and sinews and flesh be formed into a shape such as we see? For let this now be said hypothetically: if you yourselves were not such as you now are, and born of such parents [and causes], and one were to show you human seed and a picture of a man, and were to say with confidence that from such a substance such a being could be produced, would you believe before you saw the actual production? No one will dare to deny [that such a statement would surpass belief]. In the same way, then, you are now incredulous because you have never seen a dead man rise again. But as at first you would not have believed it possible that such persons could be produced, so also judge ye that it is not impossible that the bodies of men, after they have been dissolved, and like seeds resolved into earth, should in God’s appointed time rise again and put on incorruption.”

Such statements should give us cause to re-consider whether the ancient world was as gullible and credulous as we are often led to think.

Things Which Ought To Be Better Known About The Resurrection Of Jesus (Dr Peter Williams)

Response to the New Atheist Rosa Rubicondior - Christians! Be Sensible Now And Tell Me This.

 I recently found myself reading the blog of a UK based  New Atheist who blogs and Tweets alot about problems they have have with Christianity here. Most of the content is actually pretty good and the author seems pretty well read in the atheistic literature from what I can see. I subsequently stumbled upon a post that posed several questions for Christians to respond to. So being Christians, a few of us got together and offer a few brief points in response to Rosa Rubicondior. They are not exhaustive responses, and some of the questions touch upon very similar points so it wasn't necessary to go over them again. Anyway, below are our thoughts on the questions posed to Christians, hopefully the response will be helpful for both Christians and Atheists.

 Hopefully these questions are genuine and if this is the case I hope that these short responses help to correct any misunderstandings, and help people to better understand what Christians actually believe. There is often a tendency for many New Atheists to come up with questions about theism or Christianity specifically that are meant to rock the theistic boat. However the answers are usually a little thought or book away. I think its important as a Christian to better understand the New Atheism and see where their coming from so I take the time to read their books. Perhaps if I can humbly suggest that the New Atheists occasionally pick up a book on the basics of Christian Theology (I know after reading Dawkins you think its a non-subject). Stranger things have happened. Most of us are products of the books we read, most atheists read books that support their case or assumptions and the minority of Christians who do pick up a book generally do the same. Its good to mix it up a little.

The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus: Timothy McGrew

William Lane Craig on the evidence for the resurrection in Southampton

Evidence Jesus Christ Rose from the Dead: William Lane Craig

NT Wright on the Resurrection of Jesus

NT Wright Lectures on the Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection

The Case for the Empty Tomb

Over the course of my previous blog entries, I have discussed the various lines of evidence supporting the historical proposition that Jesus really did appear to individuals and groups of people following his death by crucifixion. In this blog entry, I want to consider some of the evidence pertaining to the vacancy of the tomb. While an establishment of the empty tomb may not, in and of itself, constitute compelling evidence for the resurrection, when taken in the context of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus (which I have evidenced previously), it adds to a very compelling cumulative argument.

Voice of the Martyrs and the Resurrection

In previous blog posts, I began to examine the evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, building a cumulative argument based on ancient Hebrew and pagan beliefs regarding the resurrection, in addition to the Jewish Messianic expectations and the early oral creed quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. In this article, I want to take a look at some of the evidence from first century Christian martyrs.

What is the value in studying the martyrdom of the first-generation eyewitnesses of the resurrection? For one thing, the persecution and martyrdom of these early disciples serves to confirm that, at minimum, they sincerely believed their message to be true. But since their claim was that they had been first hand eye-witnesses, their willingness to face persecution and in most cases martyrdom was not based on a religious or faith-based commitment, nor an oral tradition. Rather, it was based on something which they had actually seen first-hand with their own eyes. Many people have been martyred over the centuries for a religious belief. But how many have died for the advancement and propagation of a known lie? To the contrary, when life or liberty is at stake, multi-party conspiracies invariably break down.

As J.P. Moreland explains,

“The disciples had nothing to gain by lying and starting a new religion. They faced hardship, ridicule, hostility and martyr’s deaths. In light of this, they could have never sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie. The disciples were not fools and Paul was a cool-headed intellectual of the first rank. There would have been several opportunities over three to four decades of ministry to reconsider and renounce the lie.”

One must take caution with such an argument, however, since many of the accounts of the fates of the disciples come too late to be of substantial value, and many of the accounts have clearly been legendarily embellished. We can, however, establish the martyrdom of some of the alleged eyewitnesses for their faith. My case, will largely be based, therefore, on those whom we can confidently affirm did meet this fate.

What is the Significance of the Creed Quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15?

In my previous post, I explored the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus in the context of the Jewish Messianic expectations and the prevailing concepts regarding resurrection in the first century world. Over the course of the next few blog entries in this series, I want to consider some of the circumstantial historiographical evidence for the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to his disciples, friends and foes, starting with that early Creedal summary given in 1 Corinthians 15. What information can be learn from this early creed? Embedded below is one of the best videos on this subject, which provides a succinct yet informative summary of the importance, significance and evidential value of this passage regarding the resurrection.



What does 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 say?

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

The vast majority of New Testament scholars affirm that this passage is an old creed that goes back as early as Paul’s fact-finding mission in Jerusalem around 36A.D., when he spent a couple of weeks with James and Peter (Galatians 1). Paul is writing 1 Corinthians between 50 and 60 A.D., which is early in and of itself, the preserved creed takes as far back as no more than 2 or 3 years removed from the crucifixion event. The creed, therefore, must date back further still. Thus, it dates to within a short window of time following Christ’s death – such a short time span and personal contact makes the concept of the development of legendary accounts highly improbable. The fact that Paul mentions in his letter to the Galatian church his meeting with Peter and James, both of whom are mentioned specifically in the creed, gives this testimony extra weight.

Among the facts which have convinced scholars as to the creedal nature of this text are the following:

1. The creed comprises a summary that corresponds line by line with what the gospels teach.
2. Paul introduces it with the words ‘received’ and ‘delivered’, which are technical rabbinic terms indicating he’s passing along holy tradition.
3. The writing is highly stylised with non-Pauline characteristics
4. The original text uses Cephas for Peter, which is his Aramaic name. The Aramaic itself could in fact indicate a very early origin.
5. The creed uses several other primitive phrases that Paul would not customarily use, such as ‘the Twelve’, ‘the third day’, ‘he was raised’, etc.
6. The use of certain words is similar to Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew means of narration.

Facts such as those stated above have led Joachim Jeremias, an eminent scholar, to refer to this creed as ‘the earliest tradition of all’, and Ulrich Wilckens to conclude that the creed ‘indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.’ Moreover, the Jewish New Testament scholar Pinchas Lapide affirms that the evidence in support of the creed is so strong that it ‘may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses.’

In the next installment of this series, I shall consider the evidence and significance of the martyrdom of those who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection.

Was Jesus Seen Alive After His Death?

What do you think was the most significant event in human history? Unquestionably, the greatest event was the faint sound of a heartbeat in a cold lifeless body in a tomb two thousand years ago. The sound of blood rushing through the heart of Jesus of Nazareth is a sound which will undoubtedly thunder throughout eternity owing to its profound implications

Its significance lies in the fact that it constituted evidence that the Judge of the Universe had acknowledged that the payment for our sins had been accepted.

The bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead is God’s public vindication of his Son’s radical claims to divine authority. According to Acts 17:31, “God has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” The credibility of Christianity thus hangs on one straightforward question: Did Jesus Christ come back to life a few days after he died and was buried? His character, his claims and his relevance for today all hinges on this crucial issue.

The spin-off is stupendous. If Jesus is now no more than a handful of dust and bones slowly crumbling away somewhere on the outskirts of Jerusalem, the entire Christian faith lies buried with him; all its martyrs were mistaken; all its reformers deluded; all its church buildings are monuments to a myth; all its services are senseless and Easter Day is wishful thinking.

So how can one ascertain the answer to this critical question? Fortunately, as a worldview rooted in history, the Bible makes claims that can be investigated and verified academically.

In this blog series, I am going to approach the accounts of the resurrection not primarily as inspired Scripture, but rather as a collection of Greek documents purporting to have been written by first-hand eye witnesses of Jesus’ life and public ministry in the first century A.D. Laying aside any theological bias or presupposition we may have, let us approach these documents with objectivity – in the way that we would commonly regard any source of ancient history. In doing so, I aim to present the facts with integrity and allow readers to make up their own minds with respect to the grander claims and personhood of Christ, to whom I believe these facts decisively point.